And speaking of experiences, how about the JHE (may they have all have had fortunate rebirths...)?

Indeed. Back here on earth as human beings in the bosom of a Dhamma-loving family, and not in the Valleys of Neptune.

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

tiltbillings wrote:You moderators are a bad examples. Wait, I started this. Sorry. Back to the topic at hand, please.

Oh well, there goes my spanking!

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

tiltbillings wrote:You moderators are a bad examples. Wait, I started this. Sorry. Back to the topic at hand, please.

Oh well, there goes my spanking!

Most definitely don't want to have to be around to see that...

retrofuturist wrote:... the only thing not permitted is to send individual topics off-topic through meta-discussion (i.e. discussion about the discussion or its participants - have a look at the link in the TOS about it if you're interested in more clarification on the downside of in-topic meta-discussion).

I'm probably one who has been quite guilty of meta-discussion. Just as some folks have difficulty understanding why it's not helpful to belittle fellow members i don't quite understand yet how meta-discussion is a major problem.

It's a problem if the topic is avoided for quite awhile but i find a "pulling back" and trying to put things into perspective as quite helpful and refreshing sometimes, just as off-topic humor (such has just been shared) can be quite refreshing.

To return directly to the topic of "how to improve our dhamma wheel experience" i would suggest that a light reminder by mods and fellow members to "return to topic" might be the best way to address both off-topic posts (such as the last few) and meta-discussions.

In other words rather then a violation of the TOS i think such discussion should be simultaneously tolerated and discouraged. Kind of how one would address wandering thoughts during meditation. You don't bring the hammer down when your mind wanders, right? You just gently bring it back to your object of concentration.

At least, that's how i've been doing it.

-->

Last edited by christopher::: on Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

As for your suggestion regarding how we ought to respond to meta-discussion, we generally do what you suggest, when we're able to get on top of it in time... but alas we are not omniscient and have lives too.

Meta-discussion rarely results in suspension, and as a self-confessed meta-discussionist, you know you've never been warned or suspended for it... so it would take something chronic to yield such action.

retrofuturist wrote:Meta-discussion rarely results in suspension, and as a self-confessed meta-discussionist, you know you've never been warned or suspended for it... so it would take something chronic to yield such action.

Cool and... thank you.

Okay I looked at the link. Most of the examples I agreed with, but am unsure about...

Suppose that on our hypothetical forum about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, there has been an off-topic object level discussion about the state of biochemistry, and someone complains that that discussion is off-topic and demands that the discussion return to on-topic issues. That complaint is meta-discussion. Instead of being about the issue, it is a comment on a different level – a comment on the issue of what should or should not be posted on the forum. That issue has nothing to do with the state of biochemistry, let alone the book and related issues that the forum is supposed to be about.

Such a comment might be understandable. It might be true. But it would be meta-discussion.

That to me seems like an attempt to get the discussion back on topic, its what mods to all the time, no? For members to be doing that as well can be helpful i would think. It would actually reduce the work of the mods, the community is taking responsibility from my pov, to return everyone's attention to the topic.

But the other examples make good sense.

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

One very good way to cut out meta discussion is to have a sub forum where only named people can answer, as they have on ZFI, and which is a huge success. Its a forum on ZFI which is functional and concerned with Buddhism. (!)

christopher wrote:I'm probably one who has been quite guilty of meta-discussion. Just as some folks have difficulty understanding why it's not helpful to belittle fellow members i don't quite understand yet how meta-discussion is a major problem.:

Yes, I have the same "problem".

I was brought up to NOT look away when someone else is being unfairly attacked, but to do my best to deescalate the situation, especially when no staff is around to take care of it.

It's about protecting the weaker. And anybody who is being attacked is in a vulnerable position.

So naturally I can hardly keep my fingers still when I see it happening.

Of course it requires some skills that I am still in the process of optimising.

Ben taught me a new word: "Peer moderation"!

Now, why should that necessarily be a bad thing?

Isn't that what is happening in off line discussions all the time?

Somebody gets a blow. A friend tries to ward it off.

That's what friends do, don't they?

And Buddhists should be friend to anyone.

So if I see that XY is mocked or belittled, am I to keep my mouth shut then, or what am I to do?

My friends, I would feel like a bloody coward if I left it to someone else. Who may not even be around.

Delegating responsibility is such a dangerous thing....and I am honestly not used to it.

Delegating can become a habit, and eventually you will watch a lady getting robbed on the street, or worse! and everybody else looks away and waits for "staff" to deal with it.

Sometimes...in fact quite often what is perceived as an attack on a person, is actually a defense of Dhamma...

The problem with meta discussion is not that is a heinous crime in itself...its that it is self proliferating.

Before you know it half the forum is occupied by people voicing entirely subjective reactions not to Dhamma, but to the tone of voice in which the discussion is being held...but that is trivial and subjective and a substitute for the hard work of internalising Dhammic concepts and practising skillful means.As Cooran's sig says " The problem is you think you have time "....we really havent. Even the youngest and fittest really hasnt. Lets all get a bit less sensitive on our own behalf and that of others. Theres work to do.

We're all responsible for making Dhamma Wheel an optimal place whether our intention is for Dhamma discussion or hanging out with people for whom the Dhamma is a central element in their lives. I like peer moderation as a concept because it recognizes that DW is much more than the admin and mod team and that like the discussions that occur on DW, the culture of the board is a product of all those who contribute. Peer moderation demonstrates a maturity of the board when members feel a sense of ownership and step in. And that could just be by being a valued contributor, of demonstrating exemplary behaviour or alerting the admin/mod team (report function) if something requires examination or helping to keep topics focused. My admin and mod colleagues have lives outside of DW, and so we can't always be here. And what's more, I don't think you guys need us here all the time.I know this thread is about how we, as the admin/mod team, can make DW a better place. But I also think there is so much we can all do.Anyway, they're just my thoughts...

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

I don't like peer moderation because a few people will inevitably start acting like hall monitors, finding identity and self-esteem in making sure everyone follows the rules exactly. In my short time here, too many threads have spun off-topic into a long series of posts about you're-not-doing-it-right, that always seems to require a mod to step in.

andre9999 wrote:I don't like peer moderation because a few people will inevitably start acting like hall monitors, finding identity and self-esteem in making sure everyone follows the rules exactly. In my short time here, too many threads have spun off-topic into a long series of posts about you're-not-doing-it-right, that always seems to require a mod to step in.